You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Since which elements are Judging and which are Perceiving is NOT defined any differently between Socionics and MBTI, it forms a contradiction to type yourself as both INTP (Ti dom) and Ni-IEI (Ni lead). Could you go over how is it that you've flipped intuition and logic for each other? Logic is logic in both Socionics and MBTI. Logic was never defined as Perception or Intuition.

Behaviorally speaking, I behave most similarly to INTP in MBTI and IEI in Socionics. Although INTP is considered "J-dom" in MBTI, behaviorally it is still a Perceiving type, as is IEI. Say what you will about the functions, but I am not behaviorally Judging in either system. Furthermore, I do not relate to Socionics descriptions of Ti. It sounds very rigid compared to the MBTI version, with its focus on rules and laws instead of just personal logic in general. I relate much more to the visual and abstract thought process of Socionics Ni, which is less J-like than the MBTI version. I think more in terms of imagery and symbolism than I do in words (a trait of Socionics Ni), but I also prefer to employ my own personal logic rather than relying on accepted terms (a trait of MBTI Ti). This is obviously a very simplified description of both, but I have thought much about this issue, and I don't feel like getting into semantics at the moment.

An odder discrepancy might be how I'm Thinking in MBTI yet Feeling in Socionics. I have to admit I don't fully understand this myself, although it may have to do with the fact that (in Socionics terms) I'm more Merry than I am Serious. I really just kind of "see myself" in IEI descriptions, I don't know how to explain it. I'm comfortable with this discrepancy between my MBTI and Socionics types because I believe they're fundamentally different systems.

And finally, for what it's worth, I usually test as INTP in MBTI and IEI in Socionics. I know a lot of people don't put much faith in the tests, so make of that what you will.

The J/P switch is a lie, it's best to type on a case by case basis than assume that everyone who is an introverted perceiving type in MBTI is suddenly a rational type in socionics, which is basically describing J; and vice versa. The only basis of this J/P switch is that the functions are named the same thing. But they describe different things, especially when you factor in function placements. Most lack of understanding in this area comes from a lack of knowledge of either theory or how to apply it.

For example many INTPs I know don't really fit into Alpha at all, nor does the Ti lead attitude in socionics really fit for them either. Most of the time when INTPs see socionics Ti as prominent in their persona is because it's the demonstrative function for ILI, the only function equal in strength to the lead function Ni.

I think if anyone who identifies as a J type in MBTI read the irrational description in socionics they would not see much of themselves in that description. Same goes to a P type reading the rational description. I'm not saying that some people don't fit INFP EII or INTP LII but most people would identify with their typically corresponding letter.

Also the switching j/p in socionics switches the type to the opposite quadra, creating more possible confusion for self typing purposes if one assumes that they are supposed to switch J/P.

People look at this in a very one dimensional way. It's not just about the functions, it's about everything else too. I notice the same people who say the theory is flawed or doesn't work claims the J/P switch as well. Trying to conform socionics to MBTI will never really work out imo.

I recently read this post on Wordpress about how some people in the typology community (notably Victor Gulenko, Dario Nardi, and the author of the post itself) believe that Socionics and MBTI can be merged with each other, and if you are a certain type in one system (e.g. INTP) then you must be the corresponding type in the other system (INTj). To anyone on TypoC who believes this, I have a question: how do you reconcile the fundamental differences in how the types and functions are defined between the systems?

I haven't read the whole thread but basically I think they are the same system because they are derived from the same theory. I like both perspectives but am skeptical on the validity of function theory - not because I disagree with it but because I think it is too linear.

I think the answer to this is quite simple: in the abstract, I see no real difference between their concepts of the 8 functions/IE/etc --- in the abstract, socionics IE are very general .... to do with objects and relations, and such. In terms of the concrete traits ASSOCIATED with the abstract functions, yes there's a LOT of difference. There are marked associations that go beyond the strict abstract definitions, e.g. the colorful portrayals of quadra values suggest alphas have a certain temperament and so on.

What this means is TO THE EXTENT you use those concrete associations to type people, you MUST type them separately in the two systems. E.g. if you believe Se people are 'forceful' and less comfort-oriented or whatever than Si people, then you cannot associate that with Se in the MBTI sense.

On the other hand, I think the 'forceful' thing is just a mistake -- it's a concrete version of the concept which ignores the broader meaning. In reality, force should be understood more abstractly: it is what's needed to break inertia, to change the kinetic energy, or what have you. What that really means is it has to do with our sense of present-ness: the present is when the future changes to past and a moment 'passes'. It's when you have to act immediately to make an impact, or the moment is gone. Now the association towards MBTI (or rather, loosely MBTI, since I don't think the actual test has much to do with functions) concepts which probably involve a present-focus becomes clear. If nothing is moving/changing, there doesn't need to be a concept of present, as time can be conceptualized as an abstract line or whatever with no privileged point selected (vs such a point is selected if we are to introduce the concept of change).

I recently read this post on Wordpress about how some people in the typology community (notably Victor Gulenko, Dario Nardi, and the author of the post itself) believe that Socionics and MBTI can be merged with each other, and if you are a certain type in one system (e.g. INTP) then you must be the corresponding type in the other system (INTj). To anyone on TypoC who believes this, I have a question: how do you reconcile the fundamental differences in how the types and functions are defined between the systems?

Well, both typing systems were interpretations of Jung, but came at it from different motivations/angles. MBTI seems to be concerned with individuality and classifying people, perhaps as a way to determine what people are best suited for in a corporate or government setting. Socionics seems to focus more on social theory by describing the relationship between different types and how different functions/types interpret or cogitate the world.

So one is a more individualized interpretation of Jung, while the other a more social/cultural interpretation of Jung. They should reinforce each other. But I think the reason why they sometimes contradict each other or why there is so much disagreement between the two is because MBTI and Socionics each got some things right and wrong about the types. Some people take this to believe they are somehow different. But they are both describing the same Jungian model of the psyche.

I think the answer to this is quite simple: in the abstract, I see no real difference between their concepts of the 8 functions/IE/etc --- in the abstract, socionics IE are very general .... to do with objects and relations, and such. In terms of the concrete traits ASSOCIATED with the abstract functions, yes there's a LOT of difference. There are marked associations that go beyond the strict abstract definitions, e.g. the colorful portrayals of quadra values suggest alphas have a certain temperament and so on.

What this means is TO THE EXTENT you use those concrete associations to type people, you MUST type them separately in the two systems. E.g. if you believe Se people are 'forceful' and less comfort-oriented or whatever than Si people, then you cannot associate that with Se in the MBTI sense.

On the other hand, I think the 'forceful' thing is just a mistake -- it's a concrete version of the concept which ignores the broader meaning. In reality, force should be understood more abstractly: it is what's needed to break inertia, to change the kinetic energy, or what have you. What that really means is it has to do with our sense of present-ness: the present is when the future changes to past and a moment 'passes'. It's when you have to act immediately to make an impact, or the moment is gone. Now the association towards MBTI (or rather, loosely MBTI, since I don't think the actual test has much to do with functions) concepts which probably involve a present-focus becomes clear. If nothing is moving/changing, there doesn't need to be a concept of present, as time can be conceptualized as an abstract line or whatever with no privileged point selected (vs such a point is selected if we are to introduce the concept of change).

It's possible for two systems using the same 8 functions to be such that both systems are valid and yet distinct in terms of who is what type.

If that's the case though, I haven't yet discovered the sense in which socionics applies. I just think of the 8 functions without really considering which particular source the information is coming from.

I believe that MBTI and socionics correlate to some degree. Meaning, I believe that a combination like ESFP in MBTI and LII in socionics isn't possible. But the descriptions are not the same, which can cause minor differences in types. For example I understand why someone who types as ENFP in MBTI might type as EIE /ENFj in socionics.

Are you referring to something like this?

Fyodor Dostoyevsky “A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals.”

After having considered the Reinin dichotomies, Gulenko's cognitive styles, and model A, I've reached the conclusion that Socionics must be forcefully separated from MBTI, which in turn must be kept at a distance from Beebe's and Berens' function stacks and axes, temperament indicators, and interaction styles.

The inconsistencies are best noted by the vast chasm separating the in-depth descriptions of the respective types, not to mention the "archetypal" representations permeating Socionics. Anyone who tries to link the types, such as the "Sherlock Holmes" administrator LSE with ESTJ/TeSi, or the "Jean Gabin" craftsman SLI with ISTJ/SiTe, is in for a major disappointment, as Te and Si have properties that do not overlap between the respective theories. It is not that Socionics is wrong, it just necessitates a complete reinterpretation and revaluation of Jungian nomenclature.

In other words, consistent typologists must pick a side, and I'm going with Berens' elaboration on Jung.